It’s January of 1944, and Igor Stravinsky, regarded as the world’s greatest living composer, is about to conduct an entire evening of his own compositions with the Boston Symphony Orchestra, a high-profile guest appearance in a city that had become practically a second home to him.
...
In reviews published the following day, neither The Boston Globe nor The Boston Herald reviewers makes mention of the anthem.
...
The next morning, Stravinsky’s “Star-Spangled Banner” is a national scandal, thanks in large part to the Associated Press. As Stravinsky conducts the anthem, the audience rises from its seats and attempts to sing along, the AP reports. “[B]ut soon the odd, somewhat dissonant harmonies of the sixty-one-year-old composer’s arrangement became evident. Eyebrows lifted, voices faltered, and before the close practically every one gave up even trying to accompany the score.” Newspapers from coast to coast run the AP’s item under sensational headlines, claiming that a “puzzled” audience has greeted Stravinsky’s anthem with “stunned silence.”
...
During World War I, the Massachusetts Legislature had narrowly passed Chapter 264, Section 9, which prohibits the performance of “The Star-Spangled Banner” as dance music, as part of a medley, or with “embellishment.” And now the officers were apparently ready to arrest Stravinsky on the spot if the conductor attempted to perform his version of the anthem. “Let him change it just once,” one reporter quoted Harvey as saying, “and we’ll grab him.”
...
At the last minute, he’d capitulated and switched to the BSO’s traditional arrangement.
...
The press was in an uproar, Stravinsky and the BSO were in a state of shock. Symphony Hall manager Charles Spaulding insisted the composer didn’t know he’d broken any law and stood ready to “conform to Massachusetts laws and render ‘The Star-Spangled Banner’ in the way it was written.” Stravinsky’s press flack told reporters, “He never intended to hurt any one’s feelings.” The Post finally cornered the composer, who claimed he’d just wanted to produce a more democratic version of the anthem.
...
ALMOST IMMEDIATELY AFTER Stravinsky’s “Star-Spangled Banner” was banned, the BSO began to push back. How could Stravinsky be punished for performing an embellished version of the national anthem when there was no authorized version to begin with? The Globe picked up the refrain, publishing an essay headlined “No Official Version Exists of the ‘Star Spangled Banner,’” which traced the many versions of America’s official song. By one estimate, in 1935 there were more than 200 different recordings of the anthem. Yet the Boston police and the national press seemed to think that Stravinsky’s version was distinctly subversive. Newspapers played up his Russian heritage, suggesting a foreigner conspiring to stage a sneak attack on a cultural landmark.
...

One wonders if Jimi Hendrix was aware of this history.

Quote:

THAT LEAVES, OF course, the question of the photo: If not a mug shot, what is it? The date on the card reads April 15, 1940 — a year before he even had the idea to re-arrange “The Star-Spangled Banner,” and four years before his Boston Symphony engagement brought him face to face with the Boston Police Department’s Radical Squad.